There is a saying around elementary school playgrounds that says, “girls go to college to get more knowledge; boys go to Jupiter to get more stupid-er.” This is a prime example of how gender-stereotyping makes an impression on adolescents. Companies have a tendency to advertise that boys are intelligent and girls are social. There is a possibility that this elementary rhyme is the response of girls to the gender-stereotypes being thrown at them. In August of 2016, Chitra Ramaswamy reported in her article, “How a sexist T-shirt harms us all,” that Gap advertisements are forcing sexist ideas, such as brainy boys and social girls, into the minds of children, which is harmful to society. It is clearly advertised that the little boy in a Gap advertisement is “the little scholar” and the girl is “the social butterfly* (Ramaswamy, 2016). There is no question about the gender-stereotyping in this particular advertisement; however, is it truly such a reoccurring problem in our society? Ramaswamy expresses in her article that it is a complication that needs to be dealt with. However, this article was so poorly written that it counteracts the point of taking a stance against gender- stereotyping.
The epitome of Ramaswamy’s article, “How a sexist I-shirt harms us all,” is that companies, like Gap, influence adolescent minds into believing that boys have a bright future ahead of them and girls just need to be social to be successful in life. This habit of gender- stereotyping began to be a problem with the color blue being designated to boys and pink to girls. It soon escalated to certain toys being made for boys such as cars and trucks, and toys like a Barbie or princess dresses for girls. Currently the problem has intensified to gender having influence over occupation. However, a lot of places are recognizing the absurdity of gender-stereotyping and have stopped using sexist advertisements. If companies such as Zara, Hamleys, and Sainsbury can abandon the tradition of gender-stereotyping in advertisements, as expressed in Ramaswamy’s article, then why can’t Gap adapt with today’s culture and do the same?
To start out, Ramswamy’s article provides a tweet that displays the Gap advertisement with the caption, “For anyone who thinks that sexist marketing to children isn’t a problem. Really “PsychScientists” (Ramaswamy, 2016). This presents a great example of pathos, the appeal to an audiences’ emotions. However, as Ramaswamy continues to write her opinion, the quality of the article declines. Ramaswamy’s introduction paragraph contains a hypothetical story to go behind the tweet. Usually this would be okay to use to appeal to the audience’s emotions; however, the author states that it is “unfortunately… true.” If the hypothetical story did not actually happen, then how can she say that it is true? This vague, and what seems to be harmless, lie damages the author’s credibility. Overgeneralization is a tactic that the author uses in one of her supporting paragraphs. For example, she claims that “any TV advert” personifies girls as princesses and boys as heroes, and that “any clothes shop” will designate certain shapes to a specific gender (Ramaswamy, 2016). This is clearly not entirely true. Of course there are some TV advertisements and clothing stores that do advertise this image, but there are others that advertise the exact opposite. She explains that “the high street retailer Zara launch[ed] its Ungendered line earlier this year,” and “Sainsbury’s no longer labelling its doctor costumes for boys and nurse outfits for girls” (Ramaswamy, 2016).
According to the University of Pittsburgh’s “Argument: The Basics” article, the four basic criteria for a well-written argument are: (1.) potentially arguable claims, (2.) reasons that answer “Why do you believe that,” (3.) evidence to support the reasons, and (4.) often assumed warrants about the author and article (UMC Web Team, 2008). These qualities are reasonable and important components of an argument, without them, an argument is weak and questionable. Chitra Ramaswamy has no problem stating her claim that gender- stereotyping is “ludicrous” and “harmful” (Ramaswamy, 2016). She states that “we are living in an age when even shapes are gendered. It is that ludicrous” (Ramaswamy, 2016). However, she supplies little to no support, evidence, examples, or explanations to back up her claim, so it goes to show that it is simply her opinion. She introduces many ideas that could be supportive, but lacks the actual support portion of these ideas. There is no reason as to why she believes that gender-stereotyping is an issue that needs to be addressed. If Ramaswamy was presenting a case in front of a judge, she would look unprepared and flustered due to the lack of support and evidence that she would be providing.
Imagine the case of gender-stereotyping being brought into the court system. Chitra Ramaswamy is attempting to sue the defendant, for gender-stereotyping, due to the harm it has done to society. It is her turn to present her side of the case and the following are the points she adresses: the company Gap has advertised boys as intelligent and girls as merely social, this is harmful to everyone in society, l’ve seen gender-stereotyping in my personal life, other companies are straying from this habit, this is not the only company still gender- stereotyping, and to conclude this is harmful to society. This argument would not stand in court. There is no support or evidence. Ramaswamy merely states her claim, states her opinion, and rests the case. Not only does her argument not stand, but the credibility of Ramaswamy comes into question.
One of the criteria for an effective article is assumed warrants. Assumed warrants are the assumptions that must be made in order to believe in what the article states. The reader must assume that the author is a credible source of information. At this point in time, anyone could write anything they want on the internet and people would believe them. It is just that simple. Therefore, how does a reader know if someone is credible or not? Chitra Ramaswamy’s biography states that she is a freelance journalist who has written the book Expecting: The Inner Life of Pregnancy. The book gives the author some credibility because it is apparent that she has a career in journalism. However, the book has nothing to do with gender-stereotyping, and the fact that Ramaswamy is a freelance journalist should make the audience skeptical of her credibility. According to The Writer’s Bureau, a freelance journalist is a “self-employed” journalist (*What Is Freelance Journalism,” 2006). Because Ramaswamy is self-employed, it opens the door for readers to assume that she does not have a steady income and could possibly write opinion articles for quick cash.
The purpose of an argument is to persuade an audience into believing what the author is saying. To successfully accomplish this purpose, an argument must contain the following components: “claim, reason, support, and warrant” (UMC Web Team, 2008). Ramaswamy’s “How a sexist T-shirt harms us all” contains portions of these components, but does not rise to its full potential. It is a poorly written, non-convicting article that seems to be thrown together in a matter of minutes. Ramaswamy portrays herself, through the way she wrote this article, as a lazy writer who is simply in it for the money. This just proves that Ramaswamy is not a credible source to be writing about gender stereotyping.
The purpose of this analysis was not to refute the cause against gender-stereotyping. Sexism is a real struggle that affects not only women, but men also. People do need to stand up and attempt to make a difference in our society. However, if the attempt is poorly executed, then it can end up hurting the cause more than helping it. Chitra Ramaswamy’s article, “How a sexist T-shirt harms us all,” is one of those attempts that should have had more thought and time put into it. It takes more than five minutes to make a change in society. We cannot be lazy about changing such a crucial part of our everyday lives.
